In this bulletin:

• Afghanistan Needs More U.S. Assistance, President Karzai Says
• Rumsfeld to Afghans: U.S. Isn't Leaving
• Rumsfeld urges Afghanistan's neighbours, Europe to do more
• Closer U.S.-India ties fuel terrorism - Afghan minister
• Pakistan warns West on Afghan security
• Pak-Afghan border monitoring joint responsibility – Pakistan
• AFGHANISTAN VS. THE PRESS PACK
• Afghanistan: Bombs and Threats Shut Down Schools
• Almond produce in need of good market
• Renewal of Vows
• Bush urges Italy not to leave Afghanistan
• Italian paper quotes Afghan sources critical of president, reconstruction
• The 'Other' War
• Vajpayee offered J&K military bases to US to fight Taliban’
• Is Pakistan Expendable?

Afghanistan Needs More U.S. Assistance, President Karzai Says - July 11 (Bloomberg)

Afghanistan needs more U.S. assistance as it seeks to quell a growing insurgency and modernize its economy, President Hamid Karzai said during a visit to Kabul by U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

The U.S. is committed to fighting terrorism in Afghanistan, even as its forces cede control to North Atlantic Treaty Organization troops in the south, Rumsfeld said in a joint press conference with the Afghan leader, televised live from the capital. Karzai said Afghanistan needs ``much more'' U.S. help.

``We will keep asking for more,'' Karzai said today. ``We will never stop asking.'' The Afghan leader didn't specify what sort of help Afghanistan requires. He pointed to advances made since the 2001 U.S.-led invasion, including democratic elections, increased schooling, asphalted roads and greater press freedom.

Afghanistan has suffered increasing violence in the south and east this year, as the coalition carries out operations to extend the authority of Karzai's government into remote areas. About 30 insurgents were killed today during a raid by Afghan and coalition forces in Helmand province, the U.S. military said.

``They're not going to succeed,'' Rumsfeld said of the insurgents. He attributed the growing violence in part to better ``accounting'' of the number of incidents, and also to the increased incursions by the coalition and Afghan forces into parts of the country where they weren't previously based. Karzai said the police force needs to be strengthened, especially in areas bordering Pakistan.

``There is no question that there is some cross-border activity,'' Rumsfeld said. ``The cooperation that we have had with some of the neighbors has been helpful, but it has not as yet completely reduced the cross-border violence, and it is something that needs to be worked on.''

Karzai has repeatedly said fighters loyal to the ousted Taliban regime and al-Qaeda terrorists come into Afghanistan from neighboring Pakistan, where he says Islamic religious schools, or madrassas, are used to train them. Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf has said his government was looking at educational syllabuses to remove ``elements of extremism.''

Today's violence took place in the village of Sangin, in the southern province of Helmand, which borders Pakistan, according to the military. Afghan and coalition forces raided an insurgent hideout, killing an estimated 30 fighters and uncovering a ``large weapons cache,'' the military said.

``Recent coalition operations have been successful in capturing numerous terrorists and terrorist facilitators who pose a danger to Afghan citizens,'' a coalition spokesman, Colonel Tom Collins, said in the statement. ``Each operation, we capture criminals who, once in custody, give the names and locations of other criminals. These operations will continue in order to bring terrorists facilitators to justice.''

The raid was part of Mountain Thrust, the coalition's biggest military operation since the 2001 U.S.-led invasion. An Afghan and coalition force of more than 10,000 is taking part in the action, which began in May in four southern provinces and has left hundreds of rebels dead.

The U.K. announced yesterday it will deploy an additional 945 soldiers in Helmand province to counter Taliban attacks. The U.K. has about 3,300 soldiers in the region as part of NATO's International Security Assistance Force, which will take over control of the area from the U.S. military at the end of July.

Rumsfeld said earlier, during a visit to Tajikistan, that the Taliban may be using Afghanistan's drug trade to finance terrorism, according to the U.S. Armed Forces Press Service. The planting of opium poppies in Afghanistan may increase this year, the U.S. government said in a report issued in March. Opium is the base ingredient for heroin.

According to the latest World Drug Report by the United Nations, the area of Afghanistan under opium-poppy cultivation dropped 21 percent in 2005 compared with the year earlier. Still, the area of land in Afghanistan under opium-poppy cultivation last year was about 14 times greater than in 2001, the last year the Taliban ruled, according to the UN report. While the Taliban banned opium production when in power, the areas where production is currently at its highest are Taliban strongholds.

Afghanistan is the biggest cultivator of opium poppies, eclipsing Myanmar in 2003, according to the UN. About 5 percent of Afghanistan's 2005 production was eradicated, the UN said.

The amount of drugs seized on the Tajik-Afghan border in the first three months of this year increased by 27 percent, Talbak Nazarov, Tajikistan's foreign minister, said yesterday, according to the Armed Forces Press Service.

The U.S. is providing training and equipment to security forces on Tajikistan's 1,206-kilometer (750-mile) border with Afghanistan, Rumsfeld said yesterday. Tajikistan allows U.S. military aircraft involved in operations in Afghanistan to use its airspace and to refuel.

``Our goal for our country is to have as many countries cooperating in the global war on terror and providing as many types of cooperation as they feel comfortable providing,'' Rumsfeld said.

Rumsfeld to Afghans: U.S. Isn't Leaving - The Associated Press

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld reassured Afghan government leaders Tuesday that NATO's growing security role here does not mean the United States is preparing to end its involvement after nearly five years of war.

"I get asked from time to time: Does the fact that NATO is coming in mean the United States is going to leave and lose their interest? The answer is an emphatic 'no,'" Rumsfeld said at a joint press conference with President Hamid Karzai after arriving unannounced in the capital.

Rumsfeld said the U.S. military, which now has about 23,000 troops in the country, will remain part of the NATO-led security force that is due to take command in the U.S.-controlled south in coming weeks. He would not say whether U.S. troop levels would go up or down in the short term.

"So I can assure you that the United States will continue to be interested, committed and involved to success here," he added.

Later Rumsfeld flew by UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter to Kandahar, the southern city that had been a traditional stronghold of the Taliban, which sheltered Osama bin Laden and provided training areas for his al-Qaida terrorist network until the U.S.-led invasion in October 2001.

Hours earlier, an MH-47 helicopter leaving the scene of a joint U.S.-Afghan Army raid in Helmand province was apparently forced to make a controlled crash landing after coming under fire by small arms and losing all power systems.

Officials said it was not clear whether the helicopter was shot down, but it was so badly damaged while crash landing that it was deemed beyond repair and was destroyed by a U.S. airstrike. No one aboard was injured.

Aware of the incident, Rumsfeld's party decided to continue with their plan to fly to Kandahar and then take helicopters to the town of Qalat in Zabul province, along the Pakistan border. The 35-minute helicopter rides to and from Qalat were completed without incident.

In Qalat, Rumsfeld met with the provincial governor, Del Bar Jan Arman, who has impressed American officials with his energetic approach to working with U.S. and allied forces in Qalat to accelerate reconstruction and other humanitarian work while also fighting the Taliban.

Arman fought the Russians during their occupation in the 1970s. He fled to Pakistan during the Taliban rule, and last year he was appointed Zabul governor by Karzai.

Speaking to reporters outside Arman's office compound, with the governor at his side, Rumsfeld applauded him as "a very serious, talented leader."

Speaking through an interpreter, Arman told reporters he was confident the Karzai government - with vital help from the United States - had momentum in the fight against the Taliban.

"With their help we will be able to resolve a lot of issues and also fight the terrorists until our last blood," he said.

U.S. officials hope the Qalat project can be a model for economic and political progress as well as improved security elsewhere in Afghanistan. But in recent months the Taliban has resurged with greater organization and better armaments.

The U.S. pledge to remain committed in Afghanistan requires a difficult balancing act by the Bush administration.

On the one hand it wants to give the Afghans reason to hope that they will succeed against long odds, after decades of war, occupation and drought. On the other hand the administration worries that guaranteed assistance will diminish the incentive for Afghans to make progress on their own.

Just that point was brought to the fore when Karzai was asked at the press conference in Kabul whether he was asking the United States to provide more troops and more help in other forms.

"Yes, much more," he replied. "And we'll keep asking for more. And we will never stop asking." Rumsfeld chuckled a little. Just a little.

Rumsfeld urges Afghanistan's neighbours, Europe to do more - 7/11/06 by Sardar Ahmad

KABUL (AFP) - US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld called on Afghanistan's neighbours to do more to end "cross-border violence" and on Europe to come up with a masterplan to help stem the country's opium trade.

Rumsfeld made a short trip to Afghanistan to meet President Hamid Karzai and leaders of the US-led coalition and NATO-led security force helping the government battle an increasing insurgency by the extremist Taliban movement.

Tapping into a flashpoint between Afghanistan and Pakistan, Rumsfeld said there was "no question that there is some cross-border activity -- Taliban and Al-Qaeda."

The "cooperation that we've had with some of the neighbours has been helpful but it has not as yet completely reduced the cross-border violence," he told reporters at the presidential palace after meeting Karzai.

"It's something that needs to continue to be worked on both sides of the border," he said.

Afghan officials, including Karzai, have long accused Pakistan of not doing enough against Taliban and Al-Qaeda leaders whom they believe fled into the country after the Taliban government was removed by a US-led coalition in 2001.

They say the leaders are training fighters on the Pakistani side of the border and sending them into Afghanistan to wage an insurgency that has gained strength every year despite the efforts of nearly 40,000 foreign troops.

Pakistan has repeatedly denied it has failed to tackle the militants, saying it has more than 80,000 soldiers along its long and porous border with Afghanistan.

Rumsfeld and Karzai rejected any suggestion that insurgents were gaining the upperhand.

"There may be an increase in the number of the attacks but the winning party is clear -- the winning party is the Afghan nation and the international coalition," Karzai said.

Rumsfeld also reiterated Washington's long-term support for the troubled country, saying groups "determined to spread violent extremism around the world" or thwart its attempts to become a democracy "are not going to succeed".

The 1996-2001 Taliban government, which was supported by Pakistan, sheltered the Al-Qaeda network as it plotted some of the world's worst terror attacks, including the September 11, 2001 strikes on US cities.

The US-led invasion toppled the hardliners after they failed to hand over Al-Qaeda leaders following 9/11.

It now has 23,000 troops here, the bulk of an international force tasked with routing militants and promoting reconstruction.

Rumsfeld arrived in Kabul from neighbouring Tajikistan where he warned that money from Afghanistan's massive opium trade was fuelling the rise of the Taliban.

This was partly because the movement was reaping funds from the trade and from providing protection to drug traffickers.

Rumsfeld said in Kabul that Europe must help end the Afghanistan trade by coming up with a masterplan to stem the production of opium.

Afghanistan produces nearly 90 percent of the world's illegal opium, which makes up most of the opium and heroin on the streets of Europe.

"It seems to me that it's important for them to recognise that it's a lot cheaper, a lot less expensive for them to assist the Afghan government and providing a master overall plan for dealing with the counter-narcotic efforts," he said.

Rumsfeld, who was last in Afghanistan in December, left the capital for the southern city of Kandahar, where there is a large US base, before he was due to leave the country.

Closer U.S.-India ties fuel terrorism - Afghan minister - Reuters - By David Brunnstrom

BRUSSELS - Closer U.S. ties with Pakistan's rival India have worried neighbours and fuelled increased terrorist activity in Afghanistan, the Afghan foreign minister said on Tuesday.

Speaking to members of the European Parliament, Rangeen Dadfar Spanta urged Pakistan to do more in the battle against Islamist militants and called on the United States and its allies to "come down" on countries that harbour terrorists.

Spanta said Afghanistan needed more support from its allies to build up its security forces and in development work to counter the threat.

In remarks given in German and translated into English, he blamed "geostrategic changes" for the surge in violence in the south of the country, which borders Pakistan.

"The United States, for example, getting closer to India is seen as a tremendous danger by many countries of the region and here we have a manifestation of that. Without those countries it is not possible to get peace in Afghanistan," he said.

"Many countries have not yet learned that Afghanistan is a neighbour, a friend on a level footing, it's not a place, if you like, where you go and occupy. Some countries would use terrorism as a weapon of external policy -- it's a pity."

Spanta said it was "another question" as to whether the political elite in Pakistan favoured such a policy. He said Afghanistan was working hard to improve cooperation with Pakistan and had had fruitful talks there.

But he said the international community had been "hesitant" about dealing with militants' external sources of support and finance.

"The countries of Europe and the United States of America must come down on countries which harbour terrorists and train them and come down hard on the sources of income," he said.

Pakistan was the main backer of the Taliban until their overthrow by U.S.-led forces in late 2001. It then joined the U.S.-led war on terror but has been accused repeatedly of failing to act against militants launching attacks in Afghanistan from its territory.

For its part, Pakistan has been alarmed by the strong ties Afghanistan's post-Taliban government has developed with bitter rival New Delhi, as well as by a nuclear cooperation deal between the United States and India.

Spanta praised another neighbour, Iran, for supporting rather than undermining the fight against terrorism.

He said Kabul wanted to stay out of Tehran's nuclear dispute with the West, even though it wanted a region without nuclear arms, and urged a peaceful solution to the issue.

Pakistan warns West on Afghan security - Financial Times by Farhan Bokhari in Islamabad

Pakistan’s interior minister has urged western countries involved with security duties in Afghanistan to review the procedures for conducting military operations there in the face of growing resentment from Afghanistan’s local population.

“The way the troops are operating in Afghanistan has unified everyone [against them]” said Aftab Khan Sherpao, Pakistan’s interior minister, in an interview with the FT.

“For instance, there have been occasions when troops [search houses] without first asking the women . . . to step away to one side. The Afghans have their own traditions”.

His remarks followed a recent visit to Pakistan by Condoleezza Rice, US secretary of state, who is believed to have urged the regime of General Pervez Musharraf, the south Asian country’s military ruler, to intensify operations against militants entering Afghanistan from its side of the border.

The US, Britain and other members of Nato wo have sent troops to Afghanistan are increasingly concerned over the safety of their forces amid rising attacks by members of al-Qaeda and the Taliban movement. On Saturday, a member of the Spanish military patrol was killed by a roadside bomb in western Afghanistan.

Mr Sherpao said the resurgence of militants in Afghanistan was the result of a set of “complex issues” including a growing drug trade which supports the militant warlords, a weak government and increasing evidence that the Taliban and al-Qaeda were teaming up with nationalist rebels.

Additionally, he said many Afghans were disappointed with the failure of the western world to step up the pace of reconstruction that would revive the economy.

Western diplomats say that the US remains actively engaged behind the scenes to encourage closer co-operation between the Pakistani government and the Afghan regime of President Hamid Karzai, although hardliners in both countries are discouraging the effort.

Members of Afghanistan’s former Northern Alliance, a coalition which fought against Taliban rule, were recently described by a Pakistani official as “the main source of blocking all efforts to normalise relations”.

Pak-Afghan border monitoring joint responsibility – Pakistan -
Associated Press of Pakistan

LONDON - Islamabad's envoy to Britain Dr. Maleeha Lodhi has said checking infiltration across the long and porous border between Pakistan and Afghanistan was a joint responsibility and not just Pakistan's sole job.

Pakistan should not be made the scapegoat for difficulties being encountered in Afghanistan whose causes are internal, she said.

Addressing the Royal College for Defence Studies (RCDS) in London, Dr. Lodhi said that Pakistan has offered to fence the border at key points, but as yet there is no response to this offer.

In her presentation on internal and external dynamics of Pakistan today, she told the audience that no country has a higher stake in Afghanistan's stability than Pakistan. After all Pakistan still hosts close to 3 million Afghan refugees.

Dr. Lodhi said that continuing instability washaving a negative fallout on Pakistan's border areas especially the tribal belt, and on Pakistan's counter terrorism efforts.

In her address Dr. Lodhi detailed the numerous steps Pakistan had taken to promote peace and stability in Afghanistan. She also listed a number of challenges in this regard, stressing the need for addressing deepening alienation in Afghanistan as well as stepping up the reconstruction effort.

Dr. Lodhi said that the Tripartite Commission, comprising Pakistan, Afghanistan and the US, and now NATO, is the appropriate forum by which better coordination and communication can be achieved. She recalled that 17 meetings had so far been held of this key body, with the last one attended by NATO's British commander, General David Richards.

Pakistan's High Commissioner also briefed the audience about Pakistan's strategy in the Federal Administered Tribal Areas, explaining that this involved a three pronged approach entailing law enforcement, political engagement and development.

She said that in the border areas Pakistan's objective has been to eliminate known sanctuaries and deny the use of any territory as sanctuary by establishing firm control of the area and sealing the border.

She added that aggressive patrolling has been combined with search and sweep operations. And law enforcement measures are being pursued with political engagement of the tribes.

AFGHANISTAN VS. THE PRESS PACK - By ANN MARLOWE – NY Post 7/11/06

July 11, 2006 -- THE latest news reports all seem to agree: Afghanistan is falling apart. Once again, pack journalism is trying to shape our foreign policy.

A prime example is Pamela Constable's report in the June 6 Washington Post: "Many Afghans and some foreign supporters say they are losing faith in President Hamid Karzai's government, which is besieged by an escalating insurgency and endemic corruption and is unable to protect or administer large areas of the country."

Well, so what else is new? Karzai has always been weak and ineffectual (if well-dressed); government control has always varied in Afghanistan from region to region - and, like most developing countries, Afghanistan has always been plagued by corruption. But suddenly, the pack has decided that the country is "on the brink of chaos" with the same lack of perspective that once fed its infatuation with Karzai.

In a June 27 Daily Telegraph piece on the "Afghan crisis," Pakistani journalist Ahmed Rashid wrote that "people are being killed at a rate not seen since the 2001 American-led invasion." The Taliban are returning, he continues, while riots in the capital show the failure of economic development.

And the "failure of economic development" is that . . . some people are getting rich. As Rashid himself reported in the Herald Tribune, he told a British soldier as they walked past some big new houses in Kabul, "These houses are why the riots took place . . . If you were a slum dweller living amid such ostentation, you would riot, too."

Almost all of this picture is misleading.

Take those "people" being killed. Of 1,100-some combat deaths so far in 2006, only 44 were coalition soldiers, about half of them American. Another 100 were Afghan civilians - some targeted by the terrorists, some in the wrong place at the wrong time. Most of the other 1,000 or so killed are insurgents - which is good news.

As for the Taliban, it's questionable whether there is an organized fundamentalist movement at all any more. The real problem (mainly in the south) is a heroin mafia whose vast fortunes depend on ensuring that the people of the poppy-growing provinces stay poor, uneducated, dependent and fearful.

The May 29 riot in the capital? Yes, 1,000 hooligans looted in Kabul - but the rest of the city's 3 million people didn't: They wanted to go to work, not destroy their neighbors' property. Unlike Rashid, they see that a country where some people get rich is a country where they can get rich, too - and a lot better than a country where everyone is poor.

Ordinary Afghans are doing better every year. Per-capita income has doubled in the last three years, the inflation rate is down from 48 percent in 2002 to 16 percent in 2005 to 91/2 percent today. Two million Afghans own mobile phones, and cars and other consumer goods are exponentially more plentiful.

Thanks in part to some good appointments by Karzai, including Gov. Noor Delawari of the central bank, and Ministers Anwarulhaq Ahady (Finance) and Armizai Sangin (Communications), Afghanistan is promoting business-friendly laws and tax measures, privatizing state-owned enterprises, and dismantling the Communist-era bureaucracy.

The progress in formalizing the economy and reducing the role of cash is remarkable. By the end of the year, all Kabul-based government employees will be paid by direct deposit, and Kabul's private banks will have a few dozen ATMs. Locally owned Kabul Bank, just two years old, has $120 million in loans outstanding and 21,000 account holders.

Some of the most dynamic investors are returnees from the Afghan diaspora, whose confidence in their homeland has lead them to make large investments building Dubai-style shopping centers and apartment houses, opening Afghanistan's first Coca-Cola and Virgin Cola bottlers, its first leasing company, private TV and radio stations and much more.

Local Afghan businesspeople have opened a host of large and small enterprises, not only in Kabul, but in Mazar-i-Sherif, Jalalabad, Herat and smaller cities. Even some towns of 50,000 now have much-used Internet cafes.

Like our country in its early days, Afghanistan's regions differ greatly in degree of development and government control.

Business is booming in the multiethnic and relatively progressive north and west. In the impoverished, mountainous center little has changed from the Middle Ages: Subsistence farming, few-to-no schools and no health care are the rule.

In the southern opium-growing provinces, the "Pashtun belt," similar poverty co-exists with illicit wealth - and violence. One province, Helmand, with just a million people, now provides a third of the world's heroin; almost every week, the traffickers there kill Afghan policemen and civilians.

This is a problem much bigger than Afghanistan, and it's unfair to expect any Third World government to control a drug mafia that earns its profits in Europe and America. Until we cut demand for drugs in our own country, there will always be a supply, and the outsize profits will always go to an unsavory lot.

The situation in southern Afghanistan is reminiscent of southern Italy in the '50s and '60s, when organized crime sought to keep the population poor, uneducated and isolated. Economic development and the rule of law did the trick in Italy; it's plainly the answer in Afghanistan, too. But there has to be security to allow such investment, and the journalistic pack seems to be rooting for the wrong side.

Karzai is unlikely to go down in history as a great leader. But it wasn't Afghans who expected Karzai to save them - it was the journalists who believe people need powerful governments.

Afghans hoped for, and need, what the Americans of the first generations of our independence had: a good-enough government to provide them security and justice. With a little help from us, from NATO, and from the Afghan diaspora returning to develop their country, the Afghans are energetic and resourceful enough to take care of the rest. Saying that Afghanistan is on the verge of collapse is a prediction that could become self-fulfilling.

Ann Marlowe has been visiting and writing about Afghanistan since 2002. Her memoir, "The Book of Trouble," is partly set there.

Afghanistan: Bombs and Threats Shut Down Schools

Tuesday, 11 July 2006 - Press Release: Human Rights Watch

Insurgency, Weak International Response Hit Girls’ Education

(London) – Escalating attacks by the Taliban and other armed groups on teachers, students and schools in Afghanistan are shutting down schools and depriving another generation of an education, Human Rights Watch said in a new report released today. Schools for girls have been hit particularly hard, threatening to undo advances in education since the Taliban’s ouster in 2001.

In the 142-page report, “Lessons in Terror: Attacks on Education in Afghanistan,” Human Rights Watch documented 204 incidents of attacks on teachers, students and schools since January 2005. This number, which underestimates the severity of the crisis due to the difficulty of gathering data in Afghanistan, reflects a sharp increase in attacks as the security situation in many parts of the country has deteriorated. There appear to have been more attacks on the education system in the first half of 2006 than in all of 2005. Southern and southeastern Afghanistan face the most serious threat, but schools in other areas have also been attacked.

“Schools are being shut down by bombs and threats, denying another generation of Afghan girls an education and the chance for a better life,” said Zama Coursen-Neff, co-author of the report. “Attacks on schools by the Taliban and other groups that are intended to terrorize the civilian population are war crimes and jeopardize Afghanistan’s future.”

Human Rights Watch found entire districts in Afghanistan where attacks had closed all schools and driven out the teachers and non-governmental organizations providing education. Insecurity, societal resistance in some quarters to equal access to education for girls, and a lack of resources mean that, despite advances in recent years, the majority of girls in the country remain out of school. Nearly one-third of districts have no girls’ schools.

The assault on education in Afghanistan is part of a dramatic resurgence over the past year of armed opposition to the central government and its international supporters. In addition to targeting educational facilities, the Taliban and other armed groups have used tactics previously rare in Afghanistan, such as suicide bombings against civilians and attacks on aid workers. Threatening messages – known as “night letters” – targeting teachers, students and government employees now appear with far greater frequency than before.

The Taliban and allied groups, such as warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar’s Hezb-e Islami, were responsible for many, but not all, of the attacks on schools and teachers that Human Rights Watch investigated. In other instances, local warlords have carried out such attacks to strengthen their local control. Afghanistan’s rapidly growing criminal networks, many involved in the production and trade of narcotics, also target schools because in many areas they are the only symbol of government authority.

“The Taliban, local warlords and criminal groups now share the goal of weakening the central government, creating a perfect storm of violence that threatens Afghanistan’s recovery and reconstruction,” said Sam Zarifi, co-author of the report. “These groups are exploiting the international forces’ failures on security in order to alienate Afghans from a central government that can’t protect them.”

Afghanistan has received a fraction of the funding and peacekeeping support given to recent post-conflict situations such as the Balkans and East Timor, Human Rights Watch said. Troops from NATO, operating under the mandate of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), have only recently begun moving into southern Afghanistan, where insecurity and armed insurgency pose the greatest threat. They replace U.S. troops whose mandate was directed at military operations against the Taliban, and not aimed at providing security for the local populace.

“For four years, the international community has shortchanged Afghanistan on security, and the Taliban and other armed groups are filling the vacuum,” said Zarifi, Asia research director at Human Rights Watch. “But the situation isn’t hopeless yet. The U.S. and NATO must show that they can and will make life safer and better for ordinary Afghans.”

Human Rights Watch called on armed opposition groups, including the Taliban and Hezb-e Islami, to immediately halt all attacks on civilians and civilian objects, in particular teachers, students and schools. The organization also urged the Afghan government, NATO and the U.S.-led coalition forces to implement a security policy firmly tethered to the development needs of the Afghan people. The Afghan government, with international support, needs a strategy to monitor, prevent and respond to attacks on education. At a minimum, it should keep track of attacks, identify and protect schools most at risk, and strengthen Afghanistan’s feeble police force so that it can investigate, arrest and prosecute those responsible.

“A key measurement of the international community’s success in Afghanistan must be the safety of ordinary Afghans,” said Coursen-Neff, senior researcher in the children’s rights division of Human Rights Watch. “Access to education is a critical benchmark. If it’s too dangerous to send children to school, there is no real security and no real development.”

Selected Testimonies from “Lessons in Terror”:

“In the first three years there were a lot of girl students – everyone wanted to send their daughters to school. For example, in Argandob district [a conservative area], girls were ready; women teachers were ready. But when two or three schools were burned, then nobody wanted to send their girls to school after that.”
– Female representative on Kandahar’s provincial council, December 11, 2005.

“The Taliban ‘went to each class, took out their long knives... locked the children in two rooms, [where they] were severely beaten with sticks and asked, ‘will you come to school now?’’ The teachers said that they were taken out of school. The Taliban asked them individually, ‘Why are you working for Bush and Karzai?’ They said, ‘We are educating our children with books – we know nothing about Bush or Karzai, we are just educating our children.’ After that, they were cruelly beaten and let go.”
– Education official from Maruf district, Kandahar province, describing how the Taliban shut down his school in June 2004, speaking to Human Rights Watch on December 9, 2005. All schools in the district closed down that year.

“I saw these two men... One of them fired a full magazine in Laghmani’s chest... I was afraid for my life and hid around a corner. I did not know who the victim was. After the killers fled, I went to the gate and saw Laghmani lying dead... It was awful.... We have been receiving night letters, but no one thought they would really kill a teacher!”
– Eyewitness speaking to Human Rights Watch on December 21, 2005, describing how on December 14, 2005, two men on a motorbike shot and killed a teacher at the gate of the school where he taught, in Zarghon village in Nad Ali district, Helmand province.

“I was a first grade teacher at [name withheld] Primary School for girls . . . Last November [2004], I was walking with girls towards school, and on our way I found a letter... It was a clear threat to me and all students going to that school. It said [in Pashto]: ‘To all girl students and school teachers who are teaching in girls’ schools! We warn you to stop going to school, as it is a center made by Americans. Anyone who wants to go to school will be blown up. To avoid such a death, we warn you not to go to school.’

“After reading this letter, I along with my family decided not to go to school because those who are warning us are quite powerful and strong. We are ordinary people and we can not challenge them. Also, I asked the girls from my village not to go back to school... All the girls from my village would really like to attend that school... but the problem is security – what will happen if they really plant bombs on our way? That’s the reason.
– Former teacher, Laghman province, June 7, 2005.

“I said, ‘Please don’t include Helmand province in your target areas, because we will have to hire staff two times: we will send staff and they will be killed.’ This is not a joke. We cannot take charge of working there. This is the main place where the Taliban operates.”
– Staff member of an Afghan NGO that has weathered serious security problems explaining why he urged the coordinator of a joint NGO program not to expand the program to Helmand, speaking with Human Rights Watch on December 15, 2006.

“While culture is an issue, security is more important because even those people who want to break tradition are not able to.”
– Member of a women’s group in Kandahar city, December 8, 2005.

Almond produce in need of good market - Pajhwok - By Muhammad Barat

AIBAK - The produce of almond has showed good increase in the northern Samangan province this year as compared with the yesteryear, but the farmers are worried about unavailability of adequate market for the fruit.

Jamaludin, planning officer of the Provincial Agriculture Department, told Pajhwok Afghan News the produce of almond might touch 8,100 tons worth $32 million this year, as compared with the last year produce that was 6,753 tons worth $27 million.

He said suitable climate was the major reason for increase in almond produce in the province. He said 1,100 hectors of almond gardens were in Aibak, capital of Samangan.

However, the farmers and traders of almond in the province are complaining of the poor market for their precious produce.

Sur Gul, 70, a farmer of Larghan village of Aibak, said: "I gained 1,400 kilograms of almond from 400 almond trees, but I sell them very cheaper to the traders due to low market."

The old farmer said he had pinned great hopes with the produce as he was supporting his big family with money earned through almond.

He said prices of almond varies with quality as per kg of Sitar Baie was sold for 300 afghanis others as Maroji, Kaghazi and Sandoqi were sold for less prices.

Haji Zia, another farmer, said almond of Samangan was the best in the country and its produce had increased as compared with the yesteryear, but the prices were low.

Haji Ghulam Haider, one of the local traders, said they sold huge quantity of almond to traders, who sold it to merchants of other provinces or exported it to neighbouring Pakistan and India. He said 70% of the almonds of this province were exported.

Ghulam Nabi, head of the economic commission in the province, admitted the problems of poor market for fruit. He termed Samangan almond as one of the best producing item of the country.

He said thousands of Samangan almonds were exporting to Pakistan, India, China and UAE. He said they were trying to find markets for almond.

Renewal of Vows - The American Enterprise - 07/10/2006 By Alan Dowd

In a surprise detour intended to underscore Washington's commitment to the war on terror, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice hop-scotched across the war's frontlines late last month, visiting Pakistan and Afghanistan en route to a summit in Russia. "We are not going to tire," she intoned, echoing the president's stirring words of almost five years earlier. Yet if the U.S.-Pakistani relationship is any indication, it appears the U.S. is no longer putting the same muscle behind its post-9/11 doctrine.

Before recapping this one-sided relationship, a brief history lesson may be helpful.

On September 20, 2001, President George W. Bush unveiled part one of the doctrine that bears his name. "From this day forward," he declared, "any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime." He proceeded to dictate terms to one such regime, demanding that the Taliban government of Afghanistan hand over all al-Qaeda leaders; shut down every terrorist training camp; turn over "every terrorist and every person in their support structure;" and "give the United States full access to terrorist training camps." His demands, he added, "are not open to negotiation or discussion."

Days earlier, then-Secretary of State Colin Powell privately delivered a similar list of demands to the man who ruled Afghanistan's neighbor to the east, Pakistan's Pervez Musharraf. Speaking "as one general to another," as Bob Woodward later quoted him, Powell called on Musharraf to block al-Qaeda operatives at Pakistan's borders; intercept arms shipments; end logistical support for al-Qaeda; grant U.S. forces unfettered access to Pakistani airspace, bases, ports and borderlands; block Pakistani volunteers from crossing into Afghanistan; and end support of the Taliban.[i]

That was a lot to ask of the government that created the Taliban. Bush and Powell knew the demands could topple Musharraf's ostensibly pro-U.S. regime. But they also knew the time for stability and realpolitik had ended with the maiming of Manhattan.

Musharraf agreed to every demand. The Taliban did not. And as promised, the latter became part of history. But after nearly five years of war, Musharraf is backsliding:

- U.S. forces are not free to move in or above Pakistan in pursuit of the enemy. On some occasions, Pakistani troops have even fired on U.S. forces.

- Musharraf's military is steering clear of certain tribal areas, thus allowing the Taliban to reconstitute and cross into Afghanistan to destabilize its nascent democracy. Doubtless, these "no go" zones serve as Osama bin Laden's new home.

- And most ominously, Afghan President Hamid Karzai has accused Pakistani intelligence of providing military training to pro-Taliban fighters. Islamabad rejects Karzai's claims as "false and baseless."[ii]

Whether or not Karzai's allegations are true, this much we know: Musharraf is flouting both the letter and spirit of Washington's post-9/11 doctrine, which is why it's time for a renewal of vows. Washington should measure Musharraf not according to his words, but against Powell's demands. The Pakistani leader is simply not living up to his post-9/11 promises.

Yet the U.S. has done its part: Earlier this year, the administration agreed to ship dozens of F-16 fighter-bombers to Musharraf. Between 2005 and 2009, the United States will pour $3 billion in economic and military aid into Pakistan. In addition, Washington has lobbied international lenders at the IMF and World Bank to approve $1 billion in loans. And the administration continues to avert its gaze from the fact that having Musharraf's military junta as an ally in an otherwise noble effort to spread freedom in the Muslim world makes a mockery of that very effort.

In exchange for American beneficence, silence, and acquiescence, Musharraf has condemned U.S. air strikes, slurred the U.S.-led war on terror as an assault against Islam, and waged what amounts to a phony war against the al-Qaeda remnants and Taliban leftovers that breed in Pakistan's borderlands.

The implication is worrisome: Is Musharraf unable to prod his military into capturing bin Laden or unwilling to give his military that order? Neither prospect is comforting. If the former is true, then Pakistan's military and security forces are beyond the general's control. If the latter is true, then the general is playing a game with Washington, a game that must come to an end.

Some will say that cutting Musharraf loose would be beneath America. But it pays to recall that after forging an alliance with Stalin's communist dictatorship to wage and win a world war against Germany and Japan, the United States invited Germany and Japan into an alliance to wage and win a cold war against Stalin.

Others will argue that pressing Musharraf opens the door to too many unknowns—that the devil we know is better than the devil we don't, especially a nuclear-armed devil. But it was this very mindset that gave us the Taliban and the Saudi-funded madrassahs, that acquiesced to bin Laden's global guerilla war, and that once chose Saddam Hussein over the freedom-fighters in Basrah and Kurdistan.

Still others say that bin Laden is so disconnected from the terror superpower he spawned that he is inconsequential to America's post-9/11 campaign. His recent spate of rants, which bookended Rice's trip to the region, should disabuse us of the notion that the man who masterminded this war is somehow irrelevant. Indeed, that's akin to saying that the men who planned and hatched Pearl Harbor were unimportant by the time the tide had turned in the Pacific.

Just as U.S. troops once hunted down and killed Yamamoto, just as they captured Tojo and brought him to justice, they must kill or capture bin Laden—no matter where he is. If Musharraf wants to assist, then now is the time to do so. But if his government is an obstacle to that objective, then, to borrow a phrase, it should "be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."

Alan Dowd is contributing writer with The American Enterprise, weekly columnist at The American Enterprise Online and a senior fellow at Sagamore Institute for Policy Research.

[i] Dan Balz, Bob Woodward and Jeff Himmelman, "Afghan Campaign's Blueprint Emerges," Washington Post, January 29, 2002.

[ii] VOA News, "Karzai: Pakistan Training Militants, Sending Them to Afghanistan," 18 May 2006.

Bush urges Italy not to leave Afghanistan - 7/11/06

WASHINGTON (AFP) - US President George W. Bush urged Italy not to pull its troops from Afghanistan and said he would seek more international help for that country and for Iraq at the upcoming G8 summit.

Asked whether he hoped that Italy would stay in Afghanistan, Bush on Monday told a small group of reporters: "Of course I do. It's a new democracy."

"Every country gets to make its own mind what to do, but I would hope that those who are weighing whether or not it makes sense to stay or go look at the consequences of failure, and realize the great benefits of liberty for the people of Afghanistan," the US president said.

Italy's troop presence in Iraq is to end in October following a decision by the government of Prime Minister Romano Prodi. In Afghanistan, Italy's troops serve with a NATO-led force, mostly in Kabul and the western city of Herat.

The Afghanistan mission has seriously divided Prodi's government with moderates seeking an extension and possible build-up of the 1,400-strong Italian contingent there to make up for the withdrawal from Iraq.

But eight members of the upper house of parliament including communists and Greens have called for a cutback and the start of talks with Italy's NATO allies on a pullout from Afghanistan.

Facing growing calls of a US withdrawal from Iraq, Bush said he would seek more international help for that war-torn country when he sits down with other world leaders at the Group of Eight summit in Saint Petersburg, Russia.

"One of the messages I'll be sending people at the G8 is, liberty is universal; the world is better off when there's free societies," he said two days before leaving for Germany and Russia.

"We would hope that established democracies would help young democracies grow, and there's all kinds of ways you can do that. There's a difference of opinion, obviously, in certain corners as to whether or not we should have gone into Iraq in the first place," he said.

"But now that we're there, the hope is that we can work with nations to help build the new democracy," said Bush.

Italian paper quotes Afghan sources critical of president, reconstruction

BBC Monitoring 11 July 06 - Source: Il Sole 24 Ore, Milan, in Italian 5 Jul 06

President Hamed Karzai is accused of being "surrounded by incompetent people" and spending too much time "mediating with local notables" instead of taking decisions for guaranteeing stability, Italian newspaper Il Sole 24 Ore says, referring to Afghan "government sources". Karzai is accused of "turning a blind eye to the militias in the hope that the local chiefs will take on responsibility for dealing with the Taleban". Some also say that he has never managed to connect up with his own people, the Pashtun, who are now once again listening to the Taleban. The paper also speaks of "widespread opinion that the Afghans have showed frustration over the slowness of the reconstruction, which is benefiting only a few privileged people who are building large opulent villas for themselves, while basic services like mains water and electricity remain an impossible dream for most people". The paper warns Italy's pacifists to reflect on the risk of a "far more serious regional destabilization with global repercussions" if Afghanistan fails. The following is the text of report by Marco Niada, entitled "Karzai increasingly alone", published by Italian newspaper Il Sole 24 Ore on 5 July:

Kabul: The uprisings of 29 May, which were triggered by the fatal road accident caused by a US soldier, have placed a grave question mark over Kabul, changing the entire perception over Afghanistan. For, in addition to the marked deterioration in the military situation in the south, fuelled by the bolstering of the Taleban, there is now an unknown factor involving the capital, the showcase of the country, which is in the grip of chaotic and feverish building activity which seemed to augur well for the future.

The xenophobic unrest, with attacks on the offices of international organizations, non-profit making organizations, and hotels for foreigners, have created insecurity: "Those few hours of anarchy have suddenly made clear the extent to which the situation is still precarious," we were told by one diplomat who did not wish to be named.

Since May 29 everything has changed, especially for President Hamed Karzai who, according to his critics, no longer even deserves the title "mayor of Kabul", which he has been given by malicious people, owing to the scant control which he has over the country.

From discussions which Il Sole-24 Ore has had with government sources in the capital, one gets the impression of a malaise among the executive, although not all the blame is attributed to Karzai.

The recurrent criticism is that the president is surrounded by incompetent people, and that he spends too much time mediating with the local notables, without paying attention to the dossiers which are put before him, as well as not making decisions which are necessary for guaranteeing stability.

And there is worse still: The recent confirmation or appointment of unreliable people to top posts, such as the head of police in Kabul, Amanullah Gozar, or the de facto delegated powers of controlling the local area to the militias in the south could prove to be ruinous. In the case of Gozar, who is notoriously linked to shady business deals, Karzai did not come out well even as regards formal appearances, given that at the time of the appointment, after the unrest, he did not hold back from actually calling him "brother".

As for the militias, although their recomposition is banned, Karzai is turning a blind eye, in the hope that the local chiefs will take on responsibility for dealing with the Taleban. But, as well as infuriating the Westerners, who see the rebirth of a problem in the south, after having dispensed hundreds of millions of dollars to disarm the militias of the central-northern area, and to create a normal country, the move could prove to be fatal for the president.

The periodical Kabul Weekly expressed a common opinion, recalling the fate of Mohammed Najibullah, the pro-Soviet prime minister who remained in power after the pullout by the Russians in 1989. Najibullah drew support from the militias, until they deposed him in 1992, paving the way for a civil war which only ended with the victory of the Taleban in 1996.

Moreover, according to a former member of the previous government who did not wish to be identified, Karzai wasted a golden opportunity for gaining control over the country in 2002-2003, "when, immediately after the war, the 'commanders' or warlords, who had won, were ready to agree to conditions, even tough conditions, in the general interest". Others note that Karzai, a member of the dominant Pashtun ethnic group, and originally from Kandahar, a city which is the epicentre of the military threat, has never managed to connect up with his own people, who are now once again listening to the Taleban.

At the only press conference for four months, on 22 June, Karzai defended himself by saying that he has been giving warnings for the last two years over the deterioration in the situation in the south, calling for a new approach, with a reform of the police, of the army, and of the provincial governments. Without once naming it, Karzai clearly gave it to be known that neighbouring Pakistan was fishing in troubled waters.

But the last visit by the US secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, who marked out an Olympic-sized equidistance from Kabul and Islamabad, did not pick up on the demands of the Afghan president.

The question which is circulating in Kabul is how is it that, in the midst of a reconstruction effort, thousands of Afghans have abandoned themselves to unrest against foreigners, whose aid is vital. As well as the predictable response of the government, according to which the demonstrators were manipulated, there is a widespread opinion that the Afghans have showed frustration over the slowness of the reconstruction, which is benefiting only a few privileged people who are building large opulent villas for themselves, while basic services like mains water and electricity remain an impossible dream for most people.

According to Sima Samar, the most prominent woman in the country, the former vice president in the first Karzai government, and now the chairman of the National Human Rights Committee, "people have heard of billion of dollars being promised, and were hoping for immediate benefits, but many funds have not yet been handed out".

Then there is the original sin of the United States, which almost immediately turned its back on Afghanistan so as to set its sights on Iraq, while the coalition forces have not managed to fill the gap. Only now is NATO sending men into the south, mainly from Britain, Canada and The Netherlands. But time is running out.

In this perspective, the divisions in the Italian government over the opportuneness of maintaining our military mission are dangerous. "In order to get off the ground, Afghanistan needs stability - continued Samar - and this cannot be obtained by means of a diplomatic presence alone. Troops are needed in the field. The stakes are high: If we lose the contest, not only do we go back to where we were, but we risk a far more serious regional destabilization, with global repercussions."

Italy's pacifists ought to reflect on this, thinking of the difference between wanting peace and wanting to be left in peace, ducking their responsibilities. If Afghanistan slides into a black hole, there will be trouble for everyone.

The 'Other' War - ABC news By Jim SCIUTTO

GHAZNI, Afghanistan, July 10, 2006 — The Taliban were never truly rooted out of Afghanistan's hills and now, five years after the euphoric liberation of the region, they are better armed and organized into large-scale units to fight coalition forces. Watch "World News Tonight" this week for more of Jim

Sciutto's reporting on the challenges facing Afghanistan.

The response by the United States and its allies to the most recent rise of the Taliban is the largest operation since the invasion, with 11,000 coalition and Afghan troops.

"We are going into valleys, into areas where the enemy has operated with impunity before. And we are putting pressure on them," said Maj. Gen. Benjamin Freakley.

ABC News visited the U.S. base in Ghazni, just south of Kabul. It was once a quiet province, but now attacks have jumped 600 percent and the Taliban have increased their ranks from two dozen to several hundred.

During our visit, commanders followed a suspicious convoy from here to a compound just next to the base. They are always on alert. The stand-off we witnessed ended calmly but the threat is very real, as is clear from the sight of three Humvee's destroyed in a single Taliban ambush.

The Taliban are copying Iraqi insurgents with disturbing success. There were roughly 1,000 roadside bombs in the past year and 40 suicide bombings in the last nine months.

They are getting help from abroad, including al Qaeda bomb-makers and Arab fighters, but what is more worrisome to the coalition troops here is that the Taliban are getting the assistance of Afghans themselves.

What started out as a seemingly routine visit by one British unit to a village turned into a six-hour firefight. As soon as the soldiers left, the Taliban were back and were accepted by the villagers.

The holy war is "right here in front of our homes," said Taliban commander Ahmed Shah, "even if we're too poor to fight in Iraq or America."

At each base we visited, local commanders asked for more troops. But increasing the number of troops in Afghanistan is not the current U.S. strategy.

"I believe we have an adequate force to accomplish the mission and also not send the signal to the Afghans that we are garrisoning their country … whenever they look, they feel they are occupied," Freakley said.

It is a fight to keep control of the country and one the commanders here say they must win.

Vajpayee offered J&K military bases to US to fight Taliban’ Daily Times 11 July 2006

NEW DELHI: A former Indian navy chief has revealed that the former government of Atal Behari Vajpayee had offered the United States the use of military bases in Jammu and Kashmir and other areas to carry out strikes against Afghanistan in 2001.

Admiral Vishnu Bhagwat, the first service chief to be dismissed from his post (seven months after India conducted nuclear tests in 1998), has also charged that the country’s atomic tests led to a series of “surrenders” of India’s sovereignty. In his latest book - “The Eye Opening: As I Saw It” – Bhagwat claims that India had offered the US use of three air bases in its battle to overthrow Afghanistan’s Taliban regime: Avantipur base near Sriangar; Adampur in Punjab; and Jamnagar in Gujarat.

“The informal offer was politely declined, in favour of logistically and politically more convenient environment of the Pakistani military bases,” he writes.

Quoting official sources, Bhagwat says that India had already initiated “operational cooperation” with US officials by providing them with intelligence on Afghan camps and the Taliban. “The Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) had gathered a wealth of details on Pakistani military assistance to the Taliban,” he asserts.

Terming India’s Pokhran-II nuclear tests as a “push-button affair for the BJP-led NDA government which took office six weeks earlier (to the May 1998 explosions)”, the former navy chief insists that they created a “culture and mindset of dependency”, rather than adding to national strength and self-confidence or accelerating all-round national capability through self-reliance.

While the government claimed the tests to be a great success “internationally, and with the superpowers . . . we had created quite a mess for ourselves”. Indeed, Bhagwat claims that the tests marked a “series of surrenders in every sector of the national polity, economy and science and technology”.

Bhagwat also describes the declaration of a unilateral moratorium on nuclear tests and the holding of summit-level talks with Pakistan in Lahore in February 1999 as being detrimental to India’s interests.

In his book, Bhagwat also underlines the necessity of a thorough review of the military-military relations with both the US and Britain. The former navy chief, who stands accused of disclosing India’s plans to make a nuclear-powered submarine, writes that a mini revolution was under way in India regarding the design, production and installation of command, control, communications, computers, intelligence-vision and architecture in the ships. iftikhar gilani

Is Pakistan Expendable? - CounterPunch 07/10/2006 By Conn Hallinan

Dumping Musharraf

There is a whiff of "regime change" in the air these days, but not where you might expect it. Not in Iraq, where the conservative U.S.-backed Shiites are already in power. Not in Iran, where White House threats have served to unite, rather than divide, that country. But in Pakistan, where President Pervez Musharraf has recently fallen out of U.S. favor.

Consider the following developments.

The Bush administration's "man in Kabul," Afghan President Hamid Karzai, recently fingered Pakistan as the source of the current fighting in the southern part of his country. "The world should go where terrorism is nourished, where it is provided money and ideology," he told a Kabul press conference this past June. "The war in Afghanistan should not be limited to Afghanistan."

Chris Patten, former European Union commissioner for external affairs, echoed this theme in a mid-May commentary in the Wall Street Journal. "The problem in Afghanistan," wrote Patten, "is Islamabad."

When President Bush visited Pakistan in March, he lectured President Musharraf about the need to be more aggressive in the "war on terrorism," although Pakistan has lost more soldiers fighting the Taliban in its northwestern tribal areas than the entire NATO coalition has lost in Afghanistan. And Bush refused to discuss the issue of Kashmir, the major flashpoint in Pakistan-India relations that has brought the two nuclear-armed powers to the brink of war on several occasions.

Indeed, when Musharraf asked for the same nuclear agreement that Washington had just handed New Delhi, Bush openly insulted his Islamabad hosts. With the Pakistani president standing stiffly beside him, Bush told the press, "I explained that Pakistan and India are different countries with different needs and histories."

The nuclear deal-which was favorably voted out of House and Senate committees-would let India bypass Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty sanctions slapped on it for secretly developing atomic weapons. The Indians could freely buy uranium for their civilian reactors and in turn divert their meager domestic uranium supplies into constructing more nuclear weapons.

The Bush Administration also cut $350 million in civilian and military aid to Pakistan because of a " failure" to improve democracy and human rights.

And according to Syed Saleem Shahzad, Pakistan bureau chief for the Asia Times, " Western intelligence" has helped funnel money through Oman, the United Arab Emirates, and London to insurgents in Pakistan's Baluchistan Province.

One can hardly blame Pakistan for feeling as though they are in the U.S. crosshairs. But why the sudden thumb's down from Washington? Musharraf has basically done everything the White House wanted him to do, including breaking with the Taliban and sending 90,000 troops to seal the border with Afghanistan.

The answer is not that Pakistan has fallen out of favor, but that it is a pawn that has outlived its usefulness in a global chess match aimed at China.

Chess with China

In 1992 the George H.W. Bush administration drew up a Defense Planning Guidance document that laid out a blueprint for a post-Cold War world. "The United States will attempt to dissuade any military competitor from developing disruptive or other capabilities that could enable regional hegemony or hostile action against the United States," the document read, continuing, "Of the major and emerging powers, China has the greatest potential to compete militarily with the United States."

Jump ahead to the year 2000 and a Foreign Affairs article by soon-to-be national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice: "China is not a 'status quo' power, but one that would like to alter Asia's balance of power in its own favor The United States must deepen its cooperation with Japan and South Korea and maintain its commitment to a robust military presence in the region," she wrote, adding that the United States had to "pay close attention to India's role in the regional balance" to recruit the latter into an anti-China alliance.

While September 11 and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq derailed this grand scheme, recent developments suggest it is back on track, with strong support from the influential American Enterprise Institute, the Project for a New American Century, and wealthy foundations like Scaife, Olin, and Carthage.

The anti-China alliance is already well underway.

Japan and Australia have agreed to field U.S.-supplied anti-ballistic missiles, and the administration is wooing India to do the same. While the rationale for the ABMs is North Korea, the real target is China's twenty intercontinental ballistic missiles.

Japan-which has one of the largest navies in the world-is stepping up its military coordination with the United States and has agreed to support the United States in case it intervenes in a war between China and Taiwan.

In the meantime, the United States is pouring men and materials into Asia and beefing up bases in Japan and Guam. It is also conducting war games with India, and jointly patrolling the Malacca Straits with the Indian Navy.

There is a certain schizophrenia in U.S. policy toward China, because the United States needs China to ramrod the Six Party Talks with North Korea and would like China to join Washington's full court press on Iran. So far, however, China has refused to go along with economic sanctions against either Pyongyang or Tehran, a stance that has chilled relations with the Bush administration even further.

These counter-trends, however, are more than offset by Washington's continuing efforts to build bases in Afghanistan, Tajikistan, and Kyrgyzstan, plus recent attacks by U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on China's military (using some of the same language as in the 1992 document). In short, the Defense Guidance Plan appears to be alive and well.

But while chess is a supremely logical game, diplomacy is considerably messier, and the grand scheme to corner the dragon is stirring up some dangerous regional furies.

Japan Rising?

To get Japan on board the anti-China coalition, Washington has encouraged Tokyo to adopt a more muscular foreign policy. As a result, Japan has sent troops to Iraq and dumped Article Nine of its constitution renouncing war as a "sovereign right of the nation."

When he was secretary of state, Colin Powell told the Financial Times, "If Japan is going to play a full role on the world's stage, Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution will have to be examined."

Japanese right-wingers, with the support of over 100 members of the Diet, as well as powerful industrial organizations like Canon and Mitsubishi, are pushing textbooks that rewrite the history of World War II and downplay Japanese atrocities. But this resurgent Japanese nationalism has angered and frightened nations in the region, many of which have vivid memories of World War II.

Goading the dragon has become almost a sport in Japan. The government of Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi recently took control of a lighthouse first established by right-wing nationalists on Diaoyu Island, an action China called a "provocation against, and an intrusion into territorial sovereignty." Japan and China have also clashed over the Chunxiao offshore oil field. A Japanese official told the Financial Times that Tokyo was pursuing "proportional escalation" over the fields.

South Korea, which suffered through more than three decades of brutal Japanese occupation, is barely on speaking terms with Tokyo, and has come close to blows with Japan over the Tokdo Islands claimed by both nations.

Washington's support for Japan's growing militarism has also fueled anti-Americanism in South Korea and a growing movement to close U.S. bases in that country. This is hardly the atmosphere for a grand alliance.

From Kashmir to Baluchistan

The law of unintended consequences may be playing itself out with Indian and Pakistan as well. India's central strategy has always been to insure control of Kashmir and to weaken the Pakistani Army, two goals that the Bush administration seems to share.

According to the Asia Times, a CIA official told the Indians that weakening the Pakistani army was central to the U.S. goal of bringing "democracy" to Pakistan, though the lack of it never bothered Washington in the past. The Times also reports that the CIA has been meeting with exiled former prime ministers Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif, who recently formed the Alliance for the Restoration of Democracy.

General Hamid Gul, former head of the Pakistani InterService Intelligence organization, told the PakTribune that he thought the United States was aiming to replace Musharraf.

If the United States sides with India on Kashmir, Pakistan could be looking at a strategic defeat in a long-running dispute that would not only weaken the army but possibly destabilize the entire country.

So could a stalemate in Pakistan's counterinsurgency war in Baluchistan.

The Baluchistan conflict dates back to the 1947 partition of India and Pakistan. The Baluchs, who are ethnically distinct from the Punjabis who dominate Pakistan, were forced to become part of the new state. It is Pakistan's poorest province and at the same time home to the country's largest oil and gas deposits, two realities that help fuel the insurgency.

India has been sharply critical of Pakistani actions in Baluchistan, although the Indians are highly aggressive with their own separatist movements.

In a March meeting with U.S. Central Command chief General John Abizaid, Musharraf accused India of aiding the insurgents financially, a charge New Delhi denies.

Is U.S. support for the nuclear deal and the Kashmir policy a quid pro quo for India joining the anti-China alliance? It is hard to fathom what else might explain Washington's relentless criticism of Pakistan for not doing enough in the "war on terrorism," or the recent cut in aid.

Pakistan's response has been to raise defense spending, step up its production of nuclear weapons, and test a new generation of long-range missiles. But there is a significant section of the Indian elite that doesn't particularly fear a nuclear war between the two nations. "India can survive a nuclear attack," says former Indian Defense Minister George Fernandes, "but Pakistan cannot."

Washington's obsession with China is unleashing some particularly malevolent forms of nationalism that threaten to destabilize a broad swath of the region from South Asia to the north Pacific. In this chess match, India, with its enormous population and economic potential, is a major piece on the board. Pakistan, with a sixth the population and a tenth the economic potential, is a pawn.

An expendable one it would appear.

Conn Hallinan is a foreign policy analyst for Foreign Policy In Focus and a lecturer in journalism at the University of California, Santa Cruz.

[Disclaimer: The content of this news bulletin does not necessarily reflect the view or policy of the Afghan Government, unless specifically stated as such. The collection of articles and commentaries from Afghan and international news sources is provided for informational purposes, and accuracy of the news is the responsibility of the original source.]